lee wrote on Dec 5
th, 2018 at 12:34pm:
philperth2010 wrote on Dec 4
th, 2018 at 11:50pm:
Cook published his methodology and established how he came to his conclusion....You may not agree with his methodology or his conclusion but how do YOU declare it is bogus....Most of the papers would have been data that did not address the causes of global warming so they were excluded....Only 0.7% of abstracts rejected AGW whilst 32.6% of abstracts endorsed AGW....This equates to 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming....
Yes petal. Now how does exactly extrapolate to 97% of climate scientists? You don't just exclude data because it doesn't fit your pre-conceived ideas.
Quote:Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
You do not understand the scientific method or peer review which is obvious in you bullshit denial!!!
Quote:We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
Let me explain it too you dickhead!!!
Cook analysed peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'....Got it!!!
66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW because they were research, analysis and data which climate scientists use to reach their hypothesis and form a conclusion....Got it!!!
So we are left with 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming!!!
The research is peer reviewed and published in reputable journals because it is supported by the evidence!!!
So dickhead, you don't just include data because it fits your pre-conceived ideas....Cook established how he reached his conclusion and has published his findings....The 66.4% of abstracts whom expressed no position on AGW were excluded because they did not reach any conclusion either way, they were research and data....You are a dickhead who has no idea and you are not a scientist....Just a stupid sceptic who is not very smart!!!